INTRODUCTION

Territorial waters or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea, is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22.2 km;
13.8 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The
territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships
(civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it, or transit passage for straits; this
sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below. Adjustment of these
boundaries is called, in international law, maritime delimitation.

The term "territorial waters" is also sometimes used informally to refer to any area of water
over which a state has jurisdiction, including internal waters, the contiguous zone, the
exclusive economic zone and potentially the continental shelf.

Baseline

Normally, the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured is the low-water line along
the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal state. This is
either the low-water mark closest to the shore, or alternatively it may be an unlimited distance
from permanently exposed land, provided that some portion of elevations exposed at low tide
but covered at high tide (like mud flats) is within 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) of
permanently exposed land. Straight baselines can alternatively be defined connecting fringing
islands along a coast, across the mouths of rivers, or with certain restrictions across the
mouths of bays. In this case, a bay is defined as "a well-marked indentation whose
penetration is in such proportion to the width of its mouth as to contain land-locked waters
and constitute more than a mere curvature of the coast. An indentation shall not, however, be
regarded as a bay unless its area is as large as, or larger than, that of the semi-circle whose
diameter is a line drawn across the mouth of that indentation". The baseline across the bay
must also be no more than 24 nautical miles (44 km; 28 mi) in length.

Internal waters

Waters landward of the baseline are defined as internal waters, over which the state has
complete sovereignty: not even innocent passage is allowed. Lakes and rivers are considered
internal waters. All "archipelagic waters" within the outermost islands of an archipelagic state
such as Indonesia or the Philippines are also considered internal waters, and are treated the
same with the exception that innocent passage through them must be allowed. However,
archipelagic states may designate certain sea lanes through these waters.

Territorial sea

A state's territorial sea extends up to 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) from its baseline. If
this would overlap with another state's territorial sea, the border is taken as the median point
between the states' baselines, unless the states in question agree otherwise. A state can also
choose to claim a smaller territorial sea.

Conflicts still occur whenever a coastal nation claims an entire gulf as its territorial waters
while other nations only recognize the more restrictive definitions of the UN convention.
Two recent conflicts occurred in the Gulf of Sidra where Libya has claimed the entire gulf as
its territorial waters and the U.S. has enforced freedom of navigation rights twice, in the 1981
and 1989 Gulf of Sidra incidents.

In the U.S. federal system, individual states exercise ownership (subject to federal law) up to
3 nautical miles (9 nautical miles for Texas and Florida) from shore, while the federal
government exercises sole territorial jurisdiction further out (see Tidelands).

Contiguous zone

The contiguous zone is a band of water extending from the outer edge of the territorial sea to
up to 24 nautical miles (44.4 km; 27.6 mi) from the baseline, within which a state can exert
limited control for the purpose of preventing or punishing "infringement of its customs,
fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea". This
will typically be 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) wide, but could be more (if a state has
chosen to claim a territorial sea of less than 12 nautical miles), or less, if it would otherwise
overlap another state's contiguous zone. However, unlike the territorial sea, there is no
standard rule for resolving such conflicts and the states in question must negotiate their own
compromise. The United States invoked a contiguous zone out to 24 n mi on 29 September
1999.
 Exclusive economic zone

An exclusive economic zone extends from the outer limit of the territorial sea to a maximum
of 200 nautical miles (370.4 km; 230.2 mi) from the territorial sea baseline, thus it includes
the contiguous zone. A coastal nation has control of all economic resources within its
exclusive economic zone, including fishing, mining, oil exploration, and any pollution of
those resources. However, it cannot prohibit passage or loitering above, on, or under the
surface of the sea that is in compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal
State in accordance with the provisions of the UN Convention, within that portion of its
exclusive economic zone beyond its territorial sea. Before the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea of 1982, coastal nations arbitrarily extended their territorial waters in an
effort to control activities which are now regulated by the exclusive economic zone, such as
offshore oil exploration or fishing rights (see Cod Wars). Indeed, the exclusive economic
zone is still popularly, though erroneously, called a coastal nation's territorial waters.

Background

From the eighteenth century until the mid-twentieth century, the territorial waters of the
British Empire, the United States, France and many other nations were three nautical miles
(5.6 km) wide. Originally, this was the length of a cannon shot, hence the portion of an ocean
that a sovereign state could defend from shore. However, Iceland claimed two nautical miles
(3.7 km), Norway and Sweden claimed four nautical miles (7.4 km), and Spain claimed 6
nautical miles (11 km; 6.9 mi) during this period. During incidents such as nuclear weapons
testing and fisheries disputes some nations arbitrarily extended their maritime claims to as
much as fifty or even two hundred nautical miles. Since the late 20th century the "12 mile
limit" has become almost universally accepted. The United Kingdom extended its territorial
waters from three to twelve nautical miles (22 km) in 1987.

During the League of Nations Codification Conference in 1930, the issue of establishing
international legislation on territorial waters was raised, but no agreement was reached.

Claims by legislation to the adjacent continental shelf and fishing was first made by the
United States government immediately following the Second World War. On September 28,
1945, US President Harry S. Truman issued two proclamations that established government
control of natural resources in areas adjacent to the coastline. One of these proclamation was
titled "Policy of the United States With Respect to the Natural Resources of the Subsoil and
Sea Bed of the Continental Shelf", and stipulated in its operative clause:

The Government of the United States regards the natural resources of the subsoil and sea bed
of the continental shelf beneath the high seas but contiguous to the coasts of the United States
as appertaining to the United States, subject to its jurisdiction and control.

The second proclamation was titled "Policy of the United States With Respect to Coastal
Fisheries in Certain Areas of the High Seas", and stated in its operative clause:

The Government of the United States regards it as proper to establish conservation zones in
those areas of the high seas contiguous to the coasts of the United States wherein fishing
activities have been or in the future may be developed and maintained on a substantial scale.

Following the US Presidential proclamation, the issue of legally determining territorial waters
by international agreement was raised, and in its first session in 1949, the International Law
Commission of the United Nations added the subject to its agenda.

The important issue of the breadth of territorial waters could not be resolved at either the
UNCLOS I (1956-1958) or UNCLOS II (1960) conferences, with neither the two major
contenders of a 3-mile or 12-mile limit reaching the required two-thirds support. This lack of
agreement had the potential to lead to serious international disputes. It was only at the
UNCLOS III (1973-1982) conference, whose provisions did not come into force until 1994,
that this issue was resolved at twelve nautical miles.

International waters

This article is about the waters outside national jurisdictions. For the comedy podcast,
see International Waters (podcast).

"Mare liberum" redirects here. For the 1609 book by Hugo Grotius, see Mare Liberum.

The terms international waters or trans-boundary waters apply where any of the following
types of bodies of water (or their drainage basins) transcend international boundaries:
oceans, large marine ecosystems, enclosed or semi-enclosed regional seas and estuaries,
rivers, lakes, groundwater systems (aquifers), and wetlands.
International waters have no sovereignty, ergo is "Terra nullius" as no state controls it. All
states have the freedom of: fishing, navigation, overflight, laying cables and pipelines, and
research.

Oceans, seas, and waters outside national jurisdiction are also referred to as the high seas
or, in Latin, mare liberum (meaning free sea). The Convention on the High Seas, signed in
1958, which has 63 signatories, defined "high seas" to mean "all parts of the sea that are not
included in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State" and where "no State may
validly purport to subject any part of them to its sovereignty." The Convention on the High
Seas was replaced by United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed in 1982,
which recognized Exclusive Economic Zones extending 200 nautical miles from the baseline,
where coastal States have sovereign rights to the water column and sea floor as well as the
natural resources found there.

Ships sailing the high seas are generally under the jurisdiction of the flag state (if there is
one); however, when a ship is involved in certain criminal acts, such as piracy, any nation
can exercise jurisdiction under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. International waters
can be contrasted with internal waters, territorial waters and exclusive economic zones.

International waterways

Several international treaties have established freedom of navigation on semi-enclosed seas.

The Copenhagen Convention of 1857 opened access to the Baltic by abolishing the Sound
Dues and making the Danish Straits an international waterway free to all commercial and
military shipping.

Several conventions have opened the Bosporus and Dardanelles to shipping. The latest, the
Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Turkish Straits, maintains the straits'
status as an international waterway.

Other international treaties have opened up rivers, which are not traditionally international
waterways.
The Danube River is an international waterway so that landlocked Austria, Hungary,
Moldova, Serbia, and Slovakia can have secure access to the Black Sea.

Disputes over international waters

Current unresolved disputes over whether particular waters are "International waters"
include:

The Arctic Ocean: While Canada, Denmark, Russia and Norway all regard parts of the Arctic
seas as national waters or internal waters, most European Union countries and the United
States officially regard the whole region as international waters. The Northwest Passage
through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago is one of the more prominent examples, with
Canada claiming it as internal waters, while the United States and the European Union
considers it an international strait.

The Southern Ocean: Australia claims an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around its
Antarctic territorial claim. Since this claim is only recognised by four other countries, the
EEZ claim is also disputed.

Area around Okinotorishima: Japan claims Okinotorishima is an islet and thus they should
have an EEZ around it, but some neighbouring countries claim it is an atoll and thus should
not have an EEZ.

South China Sea: See Territorial disputes in the South China Sea. Some countries [like Japan,
India, the United States, an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the 1982 United
Nations Convention on Law of the Sea, and the People's Republic of China, which opposed
any suggestion that coastal States could be obliged to share the resources of the exclusive
economic zone with other powers that had historically fished in those waters during the Third
Conference of the United Nations on the Law of the Seas.] consider (at least part of) the
South China Sea as international waters, but this viewpoint is not universal. Notably, China,
which opposes any suggestion that coastal States could be obliged to share the resources of
the exclusive economic zone with other powers that had historically fished there, claims
historical rights to the resources of the exclusive economic zones of all other coastal States in
the South China Sea.
In addition to formal disputes, the government of Somalia exercises little control de facto
over Somali territorial waters. Consequently, much piracy, illegal dumping of waste and
fishing without permit has occurred.

Although water is often seen as a source of conflict, recent research suggests that water
management can be a source for cooperation between countries. Such cooperation will
benefit participating countries by being the catalyst for larger socio-economic development.
[8] For instance, the countries of the Senegal River Basin that cooperate through the
Organisation pour la Mise en Valeur du Fleuve Sénégal (OMVS) have achieved greater
socio-economic development and overcome challenges relating to agriculture and other
issues.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), also called the Law of the
Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea treaty, is the international agreement that resulted from
the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which took place
between 1973 and 1982. The Law of the Sea Convention defines the rights and
responsibilities of nations with respect to their use of the world's oceans, establishing
guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources.
The Convention, concluded in 1982, replaced four 1958 treaties. UNCLOS came into force in
1994, a year after Guyana became the 60th nation to ratify the treaty. As of June 2016, 167
countries and the European Union have joined in the Convention. It is uncertain as to what
extent the Convention codifies customary international law.

While the Secretary General of the United Nations receives instruments of ratification and
accession and the UN provides support for meetings of states party to the Convention, the UN
has no direct operational role in the implementation of the Convention. There is, however, a
role played by organizations such as the International Maritime Organization, the
International Whaling Commission, and the International Seabed Authority (ISA). (The ISA
was established by the UN Convention.)
 UNCLOS

Replaces the older 'freedom of the seas' concept, dating from the 17th century: national
rights were limited to a specified belt of water extending from a nation's coastlines, usually 3
nautical miles (5.6 km) (Three-mile limit), according to the 'cannon shot' rule developed by
the Dutch jurist Cornelius van Bynkershoek. All waters beyond national boundaries were
considered international waters: free to all nations, but belonging to none of them (the mare
liberum principle promulgated by Hugo Grotius).

In the early 20th century, some nations expressed their desire to extend national claims: to
include mineral resources, to protect fish stocks, and to provide the means to enforce
pollution controls. (The League of Nations called a 1930 conference at The Hague, but no
agreements resulted.) Using the customary international law principle of a nation's right to
protect its natural resources, President Harry S. Truman in 1945 extended United States
control to all the natural resources of its continental shelf. Other nations were quick to follow
suit. Between 1946 and 1950, Chile, Peru, and Ecuador extended their rights to a distance of
200 nautical miles (370 km) to cover their Humboldt Current fishing grounds. Other nations
extended their territorial seas to 12 nautical miles (22 km).

By 1967, only 25 nations still used the old 3-mile (4.8 km) limit,[citation needed] while 66
nations had set a 12-nautical-mile (22 km) territorial limit[citation needed] and eight had set a
200-nautical-mile (370 km) limit.[citation needed] As of 28 May 2008, only two countries
still use the 3-mile (4.8 km) limit: Jordan and Palau.[6] That limit is also used in certain
Australian islands, an area of Belize, some Japanese straits, certain areas of Papua New
Guinea, and a few British Overseas Territories, such as Anguilla

UNCLOS I

In 1956, the United Nations held its first Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I) at
Geneva, Switzerland. UNCLOS I resulted in four treaties concluded in 1958:
Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, entry into force: 10 September 1964

Convention on the Continental Shelf, entry into force: 10 June 1964

Convention on the High Seas, entry into force: 30 September 1962

Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas, entry into
force: 20 March 1966

Although UNCLOS I was considered a success, it left open the important issue of breadth of
territorial waters.

UNCLOS II

In 1960, the United Nations held the second Conference on the Law of the Sea ("UNCLOS
II"); however, the six-week Geneva conference did not result in any new agreements.[7]
Generally speaking, developing nations and third world countries participated only as clients,
allies, or dependents of the United States or the Soviet Union, with no significant voice of
their own.

UNCLOS III

The issue of varying claims of territorial waters was raised in the UN in 1967 by Arvid Pardo
of Malta, and in 1973 the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was
convened in New York. In an attempt to reduce the possibility of groups of nation-states
dominating the negotiations, the conference used a consensus process rather than majority
vote. With more than 160 nations participating, the conference lasted until 1982. The
resulting convention came into force on 16 November 1994, one year after the 60th state,
Guyana, ratified the treaty.

The convention introduced a number of provisions. The most significant issues covered were
setting limits, navigation, archipelagic status and transit regimes, exclusive economic zones
(EEZs), continental shelf jurisdiction, deep seabed mining, the exploitation regime, protection
of the marine environment, scientific research, and settlement of disputes.

The convention set the limit of various areas, measured from a carefully defined baseline.
(Normally, a sea baseline follows the low-water line, but when the coastline is deeply
indented, has fringing islands or is highly unstable, straight baselines may be used.) The areas
are as follows:

Internal waters

Covers all water and waterways on the landward side of the baseline. The coastal state is free
to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Foreign vessels have no right of passage
within internal waters.

Territorial waters

Out to 12 nautical miles (22 kilometres; 14 miles) from the baseline, the coastal state is free
to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent
passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military
craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be
illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing
through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the
peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice,
and spying are not "innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to
navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent
passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of
its security.

Archipelagic waters
The convention set the definition of Archipelagic States in Part IV, which also defines how
the state can draw its territorial borders. A baseline is drawn between the outermost points of
the outermost islands, subject to these points being sufficiently close to one another. All
waters inside this baseline are designated Archipelagic Waters. The state has sovereignty
over these waters (like internal waters), but subject to existing rights including traditional
fishing rights of immediately adjacent states. Foreign vessels have right of innocent passage
through archipelagic waters (like territorial waters).

Contiguous zone
Beyond the 12-nautical-mile (22 km) limit, there is a further 12 nautical miles (22 km) from
the territorial sea baseline limit, the contiguous zone, in which a state can continue to enforce
laws in four specific areas: customs, taxation, immigration and pollution, if the infringement
started within the state's territory or territorial waters, or if this infringement is about to occur
within the state's territory or territorial waters.[10] This makes the contiguous zone a hot
pursuit area.

Exclusive economic zones (EEZs)

These extend 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres; 230 miles) from the baseline. Within this
area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. In casual use,
the term may include the territorial sea and even the continental shelf. The EEZs were
introduced to halt the increasingly heated clashes over fishing rights, although oil was also
becoming important. The success of an offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico in 1947
was soon repeated elsewhere in the world, and by 1970 it was technically feasible to operate
in waters 4,000 metres deep. Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight,
subject to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign states may also lay submarine pipes and
cables.

Continental shelf

The continental shelf is defined as the natural prolongation of the land territory to the
continental margin's outer edge, or 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the coastal state's
baseline, whichever is greater. A state's continental shelf may exceed 200 nautical miles (370
km) until the natural prolongation ends. However, it may never exceed 350 nautical miles
(650 kilometres; 400 miles) from the baseline; or it may never exceed 100 nautical miles (190
kilometres; 120 miles) beyond the 2,500-meter isobaths (the line connecting the depth of
2,500 meters). Coastal states have the right to harvest mineral and non-living material in the
subsoil of its continental shelf, to the exclusion of others. Coastal states also have exclusive
control over living resources "attached" to the continental shelf, but not to creatures living in
the water column beyond the exclusive economic zone.

Aside from its provisions defining ocean boundaries, the convention establishes general
obligations for safeguarding the marine environment and protecting freedom of scientific
research on the high seas, and also creates an innovative legal regime for controlling mineral
resource exploitation in deep seabed areas beyond national jurisdiction, through an
International Seabed Authority and the Common heritage of mankind principle.

Landlocked states are given a right of access to and from the sea, without taxation of traffic
through transit states.

Part XI and the 1994 Agreement

Part XI of the Convention provides for a regime relating to minerals on the seabed outside
any state's territorial waters or EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zones). It establishes an
International Seabed Authority (ISA) to authorize seabed exploration and mining and collect
and distribute the seabed mining royalty.

The United States objected to the provisions of Part XI of the Convention on several grounds,
arguing that the treaty was unfavourable to American economic and security interests. Due to
Part XI, the United States refused to ratify the UNCLOS, although it expressed agreement
with the remaining provisions of the Convention.

From 1982 to 1990, the United States accepted all but Part XI as customary international law,
while attempting to establish an alternative regime for exploitation of the minerals of the deep
seabed. An agreement was made with other seabed mining nations and licenses were granted
to four international consortia. Concurrently, the Preparatory Commission was established to
prepare for the eventual coming into force of the Convention-recognized claims by
applicants, sponsored by signatories of the Convention. Overlaps between the two groups
were resolved, but a decline in the demand for minerals from the seabed made the seabed
regime significantly less relevant. In addition, the decline of Socialism and the fall of
Communism in the late 1980s had removed much of the support for some of the more
contentious Part XI provisions.

In 1990, consultations were begun between signatories and non-signatories (including the
United States) over the possibility of modifying the Convention to allow the industrialized
countries to join the Convention. The resulting 1994 Agreement on Implementation was
adopted as a binding international Convention. It mandated that key articles, including those
on limitation of seabed production and mandatory technology transfer, would not be applied,
that the United States, if it became a member, would be guaranteed a seat on the Council of
the International Seabed Authority, and finally, that voting would be done in groups, with
each group able to block decisions on substantive matters. The 1994 Agreement also
established a Finance Committee that would originate the financial decisions of the
Authority, to which the largest donors would automatically be members and in which
decisions would be made by consensus.

On 1 February 2011, the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law
of the Sea (ITLOS) issued an advisory opinion concerning the legal responsibilities and
obligations of States Parties to the Convention with respect to the sponsorship of activities in
the Area in accordance with Part XI of the Convention and the 1994 Agreement. The
advisory opinion was issued in response to a formal request made by the International Seabed
Authority following two prior applications the Authority's Legal and Technical Commission
had received from the Republics of Nauru and Tonga regarding proposed activities (a plan of
work to explore for polymetallic nodules) to be undertaken in the Area by two State-
sponsored contractors – Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (sponsored by the Republic of Nauru)
and Tonga Offshore Mining Ltd. (sponsored by the Kingdom of Tonga). The advisory
opinion set forth the international legal responsibilities and obligations of Sponsoring States
AND the Authority to ensure that sponsored activities do not harm the marine environment,
consistent with the applicable provisions of UNCLOS Part XI, Authority regulations, ITLOS
case law, other international environmental treaties, and Principle 15 of the UN Rio
Declaration.

CONCLUSION

One vision of the future is that ocean law development must proceed within the framework of
the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. And yet it is idealistic because it
assumes that there will be universal acceptance of such a framework despite all the evidences
of default, deviation, and defiance throughout the history of general multilateral treaty
making.” National interest has always superseded global interest. But, today, it is in the
national interest of every coastal state to foster economic development and to insure
environmental protection off its shores.
“The sea offers the greatest promise and poses the gravest threat to the world of tomorrow It
can no longer be a largely ‘lawless’ area or legal vacuum.” “There is excellent documentation
that drugs and arms and possibly weapons of mass destruction are routinely transported on
foreign flag-of-convenience vessels”. It is therefore in the national interest of every state to
claim “complete jurisdiction, based on national security concerns.